toasters

toasters@lists.teaparty.net

13515 discussions

RE: Unix group permission and NT access on a filer
by rob.hawley＠netapp.com 13 Jun '00

13 Jun '00

What version of the filer are you running? Is it 5.3 or later? The filer has always supported multiprotocol access to files. With 5.3 we have completed our security model that is described in the following paper. http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/con… .shtml Assuming you are using a UNIX qtree (the default) then you have two options of how the NT users will interact with the UNIX style security. The first option is to use strict UNIX type security. Each NT user is mapped to a UNIX identity and vanilla UNIX type security is used. In this case option cifs.perm_check_use_gid should be set to ON. The second option is closer to the NT style of FAT security. If cifs.perm_check_use_gid is OFF, then everyone except the owner is considered a member of the "group". The main control on security is the share level ACL (just like NT). This is controlled by cifs access entries. We allow a further tuning of the ACL by also requiring any access be permitted by the group permissions on the file. The world permissions are not used by PCs (if everyone is permitted access by the share ACL, then world is a member of the "group"). The filer will appear to be a FAT file system to the PC clients. They will probably want to install Secure Share Access to allow them to control the security on files. SecureShare(tm) Access (176KB) SecureShare Access is a DLL for Win95 and Windows NT 4.0 which adds a page to the Properties... sheet for files which reside on NetApp filers. Double-clicking SSACCESS.EXE causes a self-extracting installer to run, installing the DLL and making the appropriate registry entries. The DLL can be uninstalled at any time by using the Add/Remove programs utility on the Control Panel. SecureShare Access is believed to work on Win98 and Windows NT 5.0, but has not been tested on these platforms and is not supported on them. http://now.netapp.com/NOW/tools/supported.shtml You may also wish to look at the following burt since that affects some of the fine points of UNIX style access. http://now.netapp.com/NOW/cgi-bin/bol?Type=Detail&Display=21019 -----Original Message----- From: Elizabeth Schwartz [mailto:eschwart@genuity.net] Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 12:55 PM To: Muhlestein, Mark Cc: eschwart(a)genuity.net; toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: RE: Unix group permissiosn and NT access on a filer Thanks! IT sounds like what we need is a "cred-GID" am I reading this right? I want to give an NT user the right to access files from his NT box that members of his unix group can access on the Unix side, on a filer set to unix file perms At 11:21 AM 6/9/00 -0700, mark.muhlestein(a)netapp.com wrote: >This is controlled via the option cifs.perm_check_use_gid. See > >http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/faq >.shtm >l#anchor1392048 > >"My CIFS clients are seeing strange group access with UNIX-style security >files" > >Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Elizabeth Schwartz [mailto:eschwart@genuity.net] > > Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 8:19 AM > > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > > Subject: Unix group permissiosn and NT access on a filer > > > > > > Please forgive any NT terminology mangling, I'm a Unix person: > > > > We've got a filer that is set up as a Unix filesystem (as opposed to > > multiprotocol.) > > Our NT users access their home directories as NT shares on > > this filer. > > Their NT login names match their Unix user id's. > > > > On the unix side, I created a group and made a > > group-writeable directory > > that is not readable to others. When the NT users log into our unix > > machine, they can write files in this directory. When they > > access this > > directory from the Unix side, only the owner can write files. > > > > Is this fixable? Without making dramatic changes to the > > filer? (I do have > > enough space to make a small extra partition if I really had to) > > -- > > Elizabeth Schwartz 781-262-6565 > > Unix System Administrator eschwart(a)bbnplanet.com > > Genuity, Inc > > -- Elizabeth Schwartz 781-262-6565 Unix System Administrator eschwart(a)bbnplanet.com Genuity, Inc

1 0

Spam from ScottUCE@aol.com
by Brian Tao 13 Jun '00

13 Jun '00

Anyone else get this spam? At first, I was puzzled by the sender's address... "ScottUCE" seems to imply the guy knows he is spamming people with this advert. Then I realized the unfortunate (yet ironically appropriate) name of the business... >;-) -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)risc.org) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't" ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Received: from imo-r17.mx.aol.com (imo-r17.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.71]) by tor-vs1.nbc.netcom.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA17365 for <taob(a)risc.org>; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:30:37 -0400 (EDT) From: ScottUCE(a)aol.com Received: from ScottUCE(a)aol.com by imo-r17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.10.) id f.42.6b6d5ee (16789); Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:12:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <42.6b6d5ee.26770ec1(a)aol.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:12:49 EDT Subject: Netapp F330 systems and parts available MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: undisclosed-recipients:; X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 108 Dear Netapp user: We have a number of F330 systems available that can be configured to your requirements and priced VERY inexpensively. F330 parts are also available, CHEAP, for sale as add-ons, upgrades, spares and spares kits. All equipment is genuine Netapp, fully tested, and carries a six-month exchange warranty. Low-cost extended warranties are also available. Please contact me if we can be of any assistance. (If appropriate, would you please forward this message to individuals in your organization whom are responsible for your Netapp hardware decisions.) Sincerely, Scott Fischmann Union Computer Exchange, Inc. 6233 Idylwood Lane Minneapolis, Minnesota 55436 www.unioncomputer.com PHONE: 952 935 7282 FAX: 952 935 5056 Union Computer Exchange buys, sells, leases and maintains used Network Appliance hardware. You can save thousands of dollars on your next Netapp purchase.

2 1

Re: Help With Firmware Upgrades.
by Moshe Linzer 13 Jun '00

13 Jun '00

disk firmware is installed along with the ontap software, in the /etc/disk_fw dir. To upgrade, first upgrade the filer firmware, if necessary for this ontap release. Then upgrade ontap. when the new ontap starts up, it will notify you if there are disks that are downlevel on firmware. Then you issue the disk_fw_update command on the filer to update the disks. Moshe >From owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com Tue Jun 13 13:54:02 2000 >From: "Lobban, Robert W SSI-ISEP-3" <Robert.W.Lobban(a)is.shell.com> >To: "'toasters(a)mathworks.com'" <toasters(a)mathworks.com> >Subject: Help With Firmware Upgrades. >Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 10:30:42 +0200 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >Precedence: bulk > > > >I am looking for some help with Disk firmware upgrades. Specifically do the >updated .LOD files for Disk Firmware Upgrades come with the Filer Firmware >Upgrades or do they need to be downloaded from the now site? If they do >need downloaded from the now site, can you point me in the right direction >as I can't seem to find them. > >We also plan to upgrade the version of Ontap we are using and I presume that >I need to perform the Disk firmware updates first and then the Filer >Firmware upgrades before attempting the Ontap upgrade?. > >Any help would be appreciated as we are a fairly new Toaster site performing >our first complete upgrade. > >Regards >Robert Lobban > >Shell Services International Ltd, Northern Area Office >Robert.W.Lobban(a)IS.Shell.Com > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Moshe Linzer | On the Internet, Unix Systems Manager | National Semiconductor, Israel | nobody knows you're a moron. Phone: 972-9-970-2247 | Fax: 972-9-970-2001 | - Network Magazine Email: moshel(a)nsc.com | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: UNIX volume and root
by Moshe Linzer 13 Jun '00

13 Jun '00

The data on the filer is administered thru a Unix host mounted to the root of the volume. You can allow each admin root access to only his own volume. Moshe >From owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com Tue Jun 13 14:56:51 2000 >From: "Uros Lampret" <uros.lampret(a)ourspace.si> >To: <toasters(a)mathworks.com> >Subject: UNIX volume and root >Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 11:30:37 +0200 >MIME-Version: 1.0 >X-Priority: 3 >X-MSMail-Priority: Normal >X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6700 >Precedence: bulk > >Hi! > >Another question. >I have F740 with single CIFS volume. (I'm an NT person) >Now I'll have to add 2 UINIX volumes. >I'll substitute two UNIX servers with it. >I have some security considerations. The two UNIX servers were administrated by two admins. >Is it possible to have diferent root passwords for this two volumes? > >Uros Lampret >Our Space d.o.o. >Malnarjeva ulica 47 >1000 Ljubljana - Slovenia >tel. +386 1 2425 372 >fax +386 1 5000 959 >email: Uros.Lampret(a)ourspace.si >internet: www.ourspace.si ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Moshe Linzer | On the Internet, Unix Systems Manager | National Semiconductor, Israel | nobody knows you're a moron. Phone: 972-9-970-2247 | Fax: 972-9-970-2001 | - Network Magazine Email: moshel(a)nsc.com | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: DLT backups capacity
by Moshe Linzer 13 Jun '00

13 Jun '00

Did you use the nrst0a device name, indicating compression? Moshe >From owner-toasters(a)mathworks.com Tue Jun 13 15:02:29 2000 >Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 11:28:13 +0200 >From: Krzysztof Miller <tytus(a)lucent.com> >X-Accept-Language: en,pdf >MIME-Version: 1.0 >To: toasters(a)mathworks.com >Subject: DLT backups capacity >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >Precedence: bulk > >Hi, > >I have faced interesting problem. When I backup my 740 >using "dump" or Veritas 3.2 with NDMP, I got max. 30GB >per DLT-IV tape with DLT7000 drive. >It is interesting , because "Compression" LED on tape drive >is "on" during backup. Have anybody had something similiar ? > >regards >-- > >Krzysztof > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Moshe Linzer | On the Internet, Unix Systems Manager | National Semiconductor, Israel | nobody knows you're a moron. Phone: 972-9-970-2247 | Fax: 972-9-970-2001 | - Network Magazine Email: moshel(a)nsc.com | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Spares Kit
by Rune Bakken 13 Jun '00

13 Jun '00

Brian Tao <taob(a)risc.org> writes: > Still, it's nice having a fully functional Netapp head ready to > slide into a cabinet when needed, plugging in PCI cards as needed. Or even better, standardize your heads and just replace and boot. :-) >>>>>>>>>>>.rune -- Rune Bakken System Administrator Nextra, a Telenor Company

1 0

UNIX volume and root
by Uros Lampret 13 Jun '00

13 Jun '00

Hi! Another question. I have F740 with single CIFS volume. (I'm an NT person) Now I'll have to add 2 UINIX volumes. I'll substitute two UNIX servers with it. I have some security considerations. The two UNIX servers were administrated by two admins. Is it possible to have diferent root passwords for this two volumes? Uros Lampret Our Space d.o.o. Malnarjeva ulica 47 1000 Ljubljana - Slovenia tel. +386 1 2425 372 fax +386 1 5000 959 email: Uros.Lampret(a)ourspace.si internet: www.ourspace.si

1 0

Re: Data OnTap 5.3.5P2 and NDMP Backups
by Moshe Linzer 13 Jun '00

13 Jun '00

Thanks for confirming this, Greg. I have seen this problem with 5.3.5P2 and Budtool 4.6.1a. I had downgraded to 5.3.5 to continue backing up. Now I was informed that 5.3.5 is buggy, and have gone to 5.3.5R2P2. Initial testing indicates that NDMP is working with Budtool 4.6.1a. We'll know for sure after the weekend... Moshe >From: "Linn, Greg" <Greg.Linn(a)netapp.com> > >A NDMP-based backup problem has been identified in our Data OnTap 5.3.5P2 patch >release. > >During development of Data OnTap 5.3.6, a deadlock condition was discovered >which impacted the NDMP Java implementation. This condition typically manifests >itself as an NDMP connection failure during resource depletion conditions. We >believe it was first introduced 5.3.5P2. The problem has been resolved in >5.3.5R2P2 and in the forthcoming 5.3.6 release. > >If you are running 5.3.5P2, and are experiencing NDMP backup problems similar to >the connection failure described above, we recommend that you upgrade to >5.3.5R2P2. > >Greg Linn >Manager, NDMP Development >linn(a)netapp.com >408.822.3752 telephone >408.822.4457 fax > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Moshe Linzer | Mastery of Unix offers real freedom. Unix Systems Manager | The price of freedom is always dear, but National Semiconductor, Israel | I'd rather pay for my freedom than live in Phone: 972-9-970-2247 | a bitmapped, pop-up-happy dungeon like NT. Fax: 972-9-970-2001 | Email: moshel(a)nsc.com | - Thomas Scoville, Unix Review -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

5 4

Help With Firmware Upgrades.
by Lobban, Robert W SSI-ISEP-3 13 Jun '00

13 Jun '00

I am looking for some help with Disk firmware upgrades. Specifically do the updated .LOD files for Disk Firmware Upgrades come with the Filer Firmware Upgrades or do they need to be downloaded from the now site? If they do need downloaded from the now site, can you point me in the right direction as I can't seem to find them. We also plan to upgrade the version of Ontap we are using and I presume that I need to perform the Disk firmware updates first and then the Filer Firmware upgrades before attempting the Ontap upgrade?. Any help would be appreciated as we are a fairly new Toaster site performing our first complete upgrade. Regards Robert Lobban Shell Services International Ltd, Northern Area Office Robert.W.Lobban(a)IS.Shell.Com

1 0

RE: ONTAP 5.3 is evil!! ;)
by Green, Arthur 13 Jun '00

13 Jun '00

> > Humm... I just noticed the ONTAP 5.3 System Administrator's Guide > that came with our new filer has 666 pages - should I be afraid? > What happens if you read it backwards? > :-o > > ----------- > Jay Orr > Systems Administrator > Fujitsu Nexion Inc. > St. Louis, MO > -- Arthur Green Internet Operations Manager Ocean Communications ********************************************************************** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please email the system manager at Administrator(a)Ocean.ie This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses. www.mimesweeper.com **********************************************************************

1 0

SV: Spam from ScottUCE@aol.com
by Öberg Mats 13 Jun '00

13 Jun '00

Got the same one.... ---- Mats -----Ursprungligt meddelande----- Från: Brian Tao [mailto:taob@risc.org] Skickat: den 13 juni 2000 06:38 Till: toasters(a)mathworks.com Ämne: Spam from ScottUCE(a)aol.com Anyone else get this spam? At first, I was puzzled by the sender's address... "ScottUCE" seems to imply the guy knows he is spamming people with this advert. Then I realized the unfortunate (yet ironically appropriate) name of the business... >;-) -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)risc.org) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't" ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Received: from imo-r17.mx.aol.com (imo-r17.mx.aol.com [152.163.225.71]) by tor-vs1.nbc.netcom.ca (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA17365 for <taob(a)risc.org>; Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:30:37 -0400 (EDT) From: ScottUCE(a)aol.com Received: from ScottUCE(a)aol.com by imo-r17.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v27.10.) id f.42.6b6d5ee (16789); Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:12:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <42.6b6d5ee.26770ec1(a)aol.com> Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 00:12:49 EDT Subject: Netapp F330 systems and parts available MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: undisclosed-recipients:; X-Mailer: AOL 5.0 for Windows sub 108 Dear Netapp user: We have a number of F330 systems available that can be configured to your requirements and priced VERY inexpensively. F330 parts are also available, CHEAP, for sale as add-ons, upgrades, spares and spares kits. All equipment is genuine Netapp, fully tested, and carries a six-month exchange warranty. Low-cost extended warranties are also available. Please contact me if we can be of any assistance. (If appropriate, would you please forward this message to individuals in your organization whom are responsible for your Netapp hardware decisions.) Sincerely, Scott Fischmann Union Computer Exchange, Inc. 6233 Idylwood Lane Minneapolis, Minnesota 55436 www.unioncomputer.com PHONE: 952 935 7282 FAX: 952 935 5056 Union Computer Exchange buys, sells, leases and maintains used Network Appliance hardware. You can save thousands of dollars on your next Netapp purchase.

1 0

RE: Recreating a Volume
by jeff.mohler＠netapp.com 13 Jun '00

13 Jun '00

You pretty much got it! Tape can be suibstituted for an NFS/CIFS host as well..etc..etc. :-----Original Message----- :From: Ferdie Mazon [mailto:ferdie@san.rr.com] :Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 5:46 PM :To: toasters(a)mathworks.com :Subject: Recreating a Volume : : :I added too many drive to a volume. I need to reclaim these :drives for my :other volumes. The volume in question happens to be my root :volume. Here's :my guess as to what I need to do: : :Copy the /etc directory to another volume and mark it as root :Reboot the Filer (760) :Copy all the data from the volume onto tape :Destroy the volume :Recreate the volume :Copy data from tape to new volume :Copy /etc directory to new volume and mark it as root (optional) : :Am I missing anything? Are there any articles or white papers on this :topic? : :Thanks, :Ferdie Mazon :

1 0

Recreating a Volume
by Ferdie Mazon 13 Jun '00

13 Jun '00

I added too many drive to a volume. I need to reclaim these drives for my other volumes. The volume in question happens to be my root volume. Here's my guess as to what I need to do: Copy the /etc directory to another volume and mark it as root Reboot the Filer (760) Copy all the data from the volume onto tape Destroy the volume Recreate the volume Copy data from tape to new volume Copy /etc directory to new volume and mark it as root (optional) Am I missing anything? Are there any articles or white papers on this topic? Thanks, Ferdie Mazon

1 0

ONTAP 5.3 is evil!! ;)
by Jay Orr 12 Jun '00

12 Jun '00

Humm... I just noticed the ONTAP 5.3 System Administrator's Guide that came with our new filer has 666 pages - should I be afraid? :-o ----------- Jay Orr Systems Administrator Fujitsu Nexion Inc. St. Louis, MO

4 4

RE: NDMP Incremental backup issue
by Garrett Burke 12 Jun '00

12 Jun '00

Hi Stephen, Would I be correct in presuming that this will also affect 'ndmpcopy' incrementals? We are using level 0 ndmpcopy to move data to another filer with the idea being to run a level 1 when we have downtime of the main system. Thanks, GB > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Manley [SMTP:stephen@netapp.com] > Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 9:03 PM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Cc: stephen(a)netapp.com > Subject: NDMP Incremental backup issue > > Some of you may recall Matt Phelps encountering some trouble with > NDMP incremental backups. > > We've identified the problem as bug 23356. > The bug description will soon be available ONLINE at NOW. > > In a nutshell, the problem is this: > An NDMP incremental dump will not include files with an mtime which is set > to a time BEFORE the timestamp of the last level 0 dump, > but created AFTER the timestamp of the last level 0 dump. > > ******************************************************************* This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and are solely for the use of the individual or organisation to whom they are addressed. If you have received this mail in error please notify the system administrator at +353 1 6399700 or by email to hostmaster(a)msc.ie This email message has been swept for computer viruses. Managed Solutions Corporation, Enterprise Customer Relationship Management, Workflow and Contract Administration. Tel: 353 1 639 9700 Fax: 353 1 639 9701 Don't forget to visit our website at http://www.managed-solutions.com ********************************************************************

2 1

Re: NDMP Incremental backup issue
by Larry Nail 12 Jun '00

12 Jun '00

We use Norton AntiVirus 5.0 to scan our filers every evening. Norton has no way to exclude the ~snapshot from bescanned, so they're scanned every evening without incident. Of course, it fails when it tries to repair, but that is not a problem. > -----Original Message----- > From: Stephen Manley [mailto:stephen@netapp.com] > Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 5:38 PM > To: scl(a)sasha.acc.virginia.edu > Cc: stephen(a)netapp.com; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Re: NDMP Incremental backup issue > > > > > > > > The history of this bug: > > > > > > Some customers were encountering problems with various Windows > applications > > > using the Win32 API. > > > > > > Apparently, the ctime of an accessed file is updated by a large > number > > > of Windows apps (even if the file is only read) because the apps > > > don't understand "last changed time". > > > > > > Thus, users with virus scanners would find that their incremental > dumps > > > included all files in the system... > > > > This sounds like a similar problem with the unix "file" command on > some > > systems. The "file" command tells you what type of file you have. > > Usually "file" has to read the first few bytes of the file to figure > it > > out. This, of course, trips the atime. But then "file" tries to > cover > > its tracks by setting the atime back to its original value. > > Unfortunately, this trips the ctime, which also causes a needless > > incremental dump of the file. So are you saying that virus scanners > also > > save the atime and set it back? Makes sense because otherwise the > atime > > of all the files on the system are reset whenever a virus scan is run. > > > But resetting the atime trips the ctime, causing all files to be > included > > in an incremental dump. > > > > But there are important reasons to dump files whose ctimes have > changed, > > so ignoring ctime isn't the answer. > > Agreed. > That's why the workaround of "ignore_ctime" is not a standard > documented option, and should not be used by most NetApp customers. > > Those who have used it understand the ramifications of their > decision. > > Longer-term solutions to the problem are mentioned in the > bug description for burt 17767. One possibility is to allow > CIFS users to choose to use the "Archive bit" semantic. > > The archive bit is the Windows way of not worrying about any > of the mtime/ctime business. I believe it is cleared when > the file is backed up, and set when the file is modified... > > Priority 1 was to fix burt 23356, so that those of you > who aren't worried about burt 17767 are not affected by it. > > We are working on the "right" answer for 17767. > > Stephen Manley > NDMP Time Keeper > > > > P.S. > > A possible workaround would be to have the virus scanner check a > snapshot. > > Then the virus scanner can't change any timestamps at all since the > > snapshot is strictly read only. Of course, the virus scanner might > croak > > when its attempt to reset atimes in a snapshot fails. > > BTW -- this was a suggested approach for the virus scanners. I don't > have data on the success rate of this choice. >

1 0

RE: Spares Kit
by daniel.milrad＠netapp.com 12 Jun '00

12 Jun '00

To clarify the last statement about Spares Kits...The first component put into a Spares Kit is the main system board with the CPU...System memory is taken off the board to ease the cost burden to the customer but is available as an a la carte option should you choose to stock it as a spare. Thanks, Danny Danny Milrad Product Manager Network Appliance, Inc. (408) 822-6286 dmilrad(a)netapp.com www.netapp.com -----Original Message----- From: Brian Tao [mailto:taob@risc.org] Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 3:54 PM To: Jay Orr Cc: toasters(a)mathworks.com Subject: Re: Spares Kit On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Jay Orr wrote: > > We've since gotten a new F720 and a spares kit. Do most people test > out the spares kit, or do most put it on faith that the spare kit is > good? You (should) test out the spares kit just as you would do your own burn-in of new equipment, even though your vendor or reseller claims they've done their own QA. Nothing here goes directly from a shipping crate and into production here without a physical inspection and an operational burn-in period. Our most recent Netapp had a drive with a mashed SCA connector that somehow (?) passed inspection. It may even have worked if all the pins contacted the connector, and we would not have known about it had we not pulled out every drive and examined them. I bought an entire F740 head unit instead of a spares kit. Last I checked, the spares kit does not include a CPU, so if that fries, you're outta luck. Besides, it is easier to swap entire heads than trying to switch a motherboard around or whatever. -- Brian Tao (BT300, taob(a)risc.org) "Though this be madness, yet there is method in't"

3 2

Wanted: Cricket config-files for toasters??
by Thaller Horst (MDCA Villach) 12 Jun '00

12 Jun '00

Cricket is the successor of mrtg, a powerful snmp grapher. Who has written Cricket config-files for F740 and F760?? Horst Thaller Infineon Technologies Microelectronic Design Centers Austria GmbH Design Center Villach Siemensstrasse 2, A-9500 Villach Tel. ++43 4242 305-6212 Fax ++43 4242 305-6389 email: Horst.Thaller(a)infineon.com internet: www.infineon.com/ezmvi

2 1

Did anyone else get this?
by Tuc 12 Jun '00

12 Jun '00

From daemon Sun Jun 11 20:59:42 2000 Received: from localhost (localhost) by heimdall.ttsg.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with internal id UAA07790; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 20:59:42 -0400 (EDT) Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 20:59:42 -0400 (EDT) From: Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON(a)heimdall.ttsg.com> Message-Id: <200006120059.UAA07790(a)heimdall.ttsg.com> To: ttsg(a)ttsg.com Subject: Returned mail: User unknown Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (failure) Status: OR Hi, Did anyone else get this? Forwarded message: > From MAILER-DAEMON(a)valhalla.ttsg.com Sun Jun 11 20:48:27 2000 > Message-Id: <200006120046.UAA05395(a)gevjon.ttsg.com> > Date: 12 Jun 2000 00:09:16 -0000 > From: MAILER-DAEMON(a)mx01.netapp.com > To: XXXXXXX(a)ttsg.com > Subject: failure notice > > Hi. This is the qmail-send program at mx01.netapp.com. > I'm afraid I wasn't able to deliver your message to the following addresses. > This is a permanent error; I've given up. Sorry it didn't work out. > > <autosupport(a)netapp.com>: > Sorry, I couldn't find any host named 10.10.20.91. (#5.1.2) > > --- Below this line is a copy of the message. > > Return-Path: <XXXXXXX(a)ttsg.com> > Received: (qmail 20179 invoked from network); 11 Jun 2000 22:57:06 -0000 > Received: from inbound.sys.gtei.net (HELO burlma1-smrly1.gtei.net) (4.2.35.14) > by mx01.dmz.netapp.com with SMTP; 11 Jun 2000 22:57:06 -0000 > Received: from XXXXXXX.ttsg.com (XXXXXXX.ttsg.com [1.2.3.31]) > by burlma1-smrly1.gtei.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9DB6F4791 > for <autosupport(a)netapp.com>; Sun, 11 Jun 2000 04:01:24 +0000 (GMT) > Received: from XXXXXXXXXX (XXXXXXXXXX.ttsg.com [1.2.7.121]) > by XXXXXXXX.ttsg.com (8.9.0/8.9.0) with SMTP id AAA06968; > Sun, 11 Jun 2000 00:00:05 -0400 (EDT) > From: XXXXXXXX(a)ttsg.com > Message-Id: <200006110400.AAA06968(a)XXXXXXXX.ttsg.com> > To: autosupport(a)netapp.com, ttsg(a)ttsg.com > Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 00:00:09 -0400 > Subject: System Notification from XXXXXXXXXX (WEEKLY_LOG) > > GENERATED_ON=Sun Jun 11 00:00:09 EDT 2000 > VERSION=NetApp Release 5.3.4R3P2: Thu Feb 24 11:41:46 PST 2000 > SYSTEM_ID=XXXXXXXXXX > HOSTNAME=XXXXXXXXXX > Console is using unspecified character set > (etc) Tuc/TTSG

2 1

Spares Kit
by Jay Orr 09 Jun '00

09 Jun '00

I have a general question - we got burned earlier this year when we had an F330 fail and our spares kit had problems. We've since gotten a new F720 and a spares kit. Do most people test out the spares kit, or do most put it on faith that the spare kit is good? ----------- Jay Orr Systems Administrator Fujitsu Nexion Inc. St. Louis, MO

2 1

NDMP Incremental backup issue
by Stephen Manley 09 Jun '00

09 Jun '00

Some of you may recall Matt Phelps encountering some trouble with NDMP incremental backups. We've identified the problem as bug 23356. The bug description will soon be available ONLINE at NOW. In a nutshell, the problem is this: An NDMP incremental dump will not include files with an mtime which is set to a time BEFORE the timestamp of the last level 0 dump, but created AFTER the timestamp of the last level 0 dump. Thus, your NDMP incremental backup may be missing some files that were created after the level 0 backup. The files that will be affected would primarily be: 1) Files that are restored, untar'ed through NFS, CIFS, or the native filer restore or NDMP restore. 2) Files that have has changed permissions, without the actual file changing (we won't back up the changed permissions). Note that the next level 0 backup WOULD include all of these files. The history of this bug: Some customers were encountering problems with various Windows applications using the Win32 API. Apparently, the ctime of an accessed file is updated by a large number of Windows apps (even if the file is only read) because the apps don't understand "last changed time". Thus, users with virus scanners would find that their incremental dumps included all files in the system... So we added a hidden option to NDMP and dump to ignore_ctime. (see online burt 17767 for more details on this issue) Unfortunately, all incremental NDMP backups incorrectly invoke that option as the default, and it cannot be overridden. The solution: We will soon have a 5.3.6 patch available that fixes this problem. This is also a good time to mention the NOW Bug Watcher utility. When we do a patch release that fixes this bug, those watching the bug will be automatically notified. (I'm guessing it probably works for other bugs, too. ;) http://now.netapp.com/cgi-bin/relfind?bugs=23356&rels= And thanks to Matt for being so helpful with this issue. Stephen Manley NDMP Spokesmodel

2 2

RE: Unix group permissiosn and NT access on a filer
by mark.muhlestein＠netapp.com 09 Jun '00

09 Jun '00

You want to turn on the cifs.perm_check_use_gid option. Thay way you will get normal UNIX group permission checking semantics. The entry in the security FAQ is intended to explain why that is not the default. Let us know if you still have problems. Mark > -----Original Message----- > From: Elizabeth Schwartz [mailto:eschwart@genuity.net] > Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 12:55 PM > To: Muhlestein, Mark > Cc: eschwart(a)genuity.net; toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: RE: Unix group permissiosn and NT access on a filer > > > Thanks! > > IT sounds like what we need is a "cred-GID" am I reading this right? > > I want to give an NT user the right to access files from his > NT box that > members of his unix > group can access on the Unix side, on a filer set to unix file perms > > > At 11:21 AM 6/9/00 -0700, mark.muhlestein(a)netapp.com wrote: > >This is controlled via the option cifs.perm_check_use_gid. See > > > >http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troub > leshooting/faq > >.shtm > >l#anchor1392048 > > > >"My CIFS clients are seeing strange group access with > UNIX-style security > >files" > > > >Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Elizabeth Schwartz [mailto:eschwart@genuity.net] > > > Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 8:19 AM > > > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > > > Subject: Unix group permissiosn and NT access on a filer > > > > > > > > > Please forgive any NT terminology mangling, I'm a Unix person: > > > > > > We've got a filer that is set up as a Unix filesystem (as > opposed to > > > multiprotocol.) > > > Our NT users access their home directories as NT shares on > > > this filer. > > > Their NT login names match their Unix user id's. > > > > > > On the unix side, I created a group and made a > > > group-writeable directory > > > that is not readable to others. When the NT users log > into our unix > > > machine, they can write files in this directory. When they > > > access this > > > directory from the Unix side, only the owner can write files. > > > > > > Is this fixable? Without making dramatic changes to the > > > filer? (I do have > > > enough space to make a small extra partition if I really had to) > > > -- > > > Elizabeth Schwartz 781-262-6565 > > > Unix System Administrator eschwart(a)bbnplanet.com > > > Genuity, Inc > > > > > -- > Elizabeth Schwartz 781-262-6565 > Unix System Administrator eschwart(a)bbnplanet.com > Genuity, Inc >

1 0

RE: Unix group permissiosn and NT access on a filer
by Elizabeth Schwartz 09 Jun '00

09 Jun '00

Thanks! IT sounds like what we need is a "cred-GID" am I reading this right? I want to give an NT user the right to access files from his NT box that members of his unix group can access on the Unix side, on a filer set to unix file perms At 11:21 AM 6/9/00 -0700, mark.muhlestein(a)netapp.com wrote: >This is controlled via the option cifs.perm_check_use_gid. See > >http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/faq >.shtm >l#anchor1392048 > >"My CIFS clients are seeing strange group access with UNIX-style security >files" > >Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Elizabeth Schwartz [mailto:eschwart@genuity.net] > > Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 8:19 AM > > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > > Subject: Unix group permissiosn and NT access on a filer > > > > > > Please forgive any NT terminology mangling, I'm a Unix person: > > > > We've got a filer that is set up as a Unix filesystem (as opposed to > > multiprotocol.) > > Our NT users access their home directories as NT shares on > > this filer. > > Their NT login names match their Unix user id's. > > > > On the unix side, I created a group and made a > > group-writeable directory > > that is not readable to others. When the NT users log into our unix > > machine, they can write files in this directory. When they > > access this > > directory from the Unix side, only the owner can write files. > > > > Is this fixable? Without making dramatic changes to the > > filer? (I do have > > enough space to make a small extra partition if I really had to) > > -- > > Elizabeth Schwartz 781-262-6565 > > Unix System Administrator eschwart(a)bbnplanet.com > > Genuity, Inc > > -- Elizabeth Schwartz 781-262-6565 Unix System Administrator eschwart(a)bbnplanet.com Genuity, Inc

1 0

RE: McAfee's Ghost
by jeff.mohler＠netapp.com 09 Jun '00

09 Jun '00

After more study internally, I was incorrect in my network based assumption. I have Emailed Ferdie back personally with this correction as well. http://now.netapp.com/NOW/cgi-bin/bol?Display=5408&Type=Detail is a link to our NOW site with specific details. :-----Original Message----- :From: Mohler, Jeff :Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 10:07 AM :To: 'Ferdie Mazon'; toasters(a)mathworks.com :Subject: RE: McAfee's Ghost : : :Without any statistics to debug this..dunno what to say. : :Can you check ALL ethernet ports in question here? Sounds :like a blatant speed/duplex mismatch problem. : ::-----Original Message----- ::From: Ferdie Mazon [mailto:ferdie@san.rr.com] ::Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 9:20 AM ::To: toasters(a)mathworks.com ::Subject: McAfee's Ghost :: :: ::Since moving the storage of Ghost images to the Filer, ::creating images has ::gone from .5 hours to just about 6 hours. I use a boot disk ::created from ::the network client program on Windows NT's administration tools. :: ::Does anyone else have this problem? :: ::Thanks, ::Ferdie Mazon :: :: :

1 0

RE: Unix group permissiosn and NT access on a filer
by mark.muhlestein＠netapp.com 09 Jun '00

09 Jun '00

This is controlled via the option cifs.perm_check_use_gid. See http://now.netapp.com/NOW/knowledge/docs/olio/guides/53_troubleshooting/faq… l#anchor1392048 "My CIFS clients are seeing strange group access with UNIX-style security files" Mark Muhlestein -- mmm(a)netapp.com > -----Original Message----- > From: Elizabeth Schwartz [mailto:eschwart@genuity.net] > Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 8:19 AM > To: toasters(a)mathworks.com > Subject: Unix group permissiosn and NT access on a filer > > > Please forgive any NT terminology mangling, I'm a Unix person: > > We've got a filer that is set up as a Unix filesystem (as opposed to > multiprotocol.) > Our NT users access their home directories as NT shares on > this filer. > Their NT login names match their Unix user id's. > > On the unix side, I created a group and made a > group-writeable directory > that is not readable to others. When the NT users log into our unix > machine, they can write files in this directory. When they > access this > directory from the Unix side, only the owner can write files. > > Is this fixable? Without making dramatic changes to the > filer? (I do have > enough space to make a small extra partition if I really had to) > -- > Elizabeth Schwartz 781-262-6565 > Unix System Administrator eschwart(a)bbnplanet.com > Genuity, Inc >

1 0

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

toasters